Although consumers love to have the option, used video game sales by retailers such as GameStop have long been a point of contention for publishers who feel that they are losing out on sales of new games.

Now, as reported by Victor Godinez of the Dallas Morning News, some publishers are taking steps to dissuade consumers from buying used games:

...each copy of Gears of War 2 will ship with a unique, one-time-use code for downloading extra multiplayer levels. Once the code has been used, subsequent owners of that copy of the game will be unable to download the levels.

And NBA Live 09 will include a similar free, one-time code for accessing daily roster and stat updates. If you buy a used copy of NBA Live 09 and the previous user has already redeemed the code, you'll have to pay $20 to get the updates.

The question now is how gamers will respond... It's also possible that used game buyers will stop buying used games in protest or buy the used game but do without the disabled features. All in all, I don't think these efforts by game makers are going to garner much loyalty from gamers, but if they add to the bottom line, the game makers probably won't care.

GP: As a game consumer, this issue is a sore point with me. First, you've got the fabulously profitable, "recession-proof" video game business, and they need to squeeze every last nickel out of their customers?

Moreover, if this is implemented widely, the publishers will put the screws to the business model of GameStop and other used game retailers. Note to publishers: those retailers also push one Hell of a lot of your new product, too.

Finally, the publishers are dreaming if they think that every used game buyer will purchase a new game instead. Cost-conscious gamers will risk buying a lower-priced used title because, frankly, a fair number of $60 games don't offer good value. That's polite-speak for "they suck." And, for those who do opt to take the $60 new game plunge, the notion of being able to trade it in later is a reassuring suck insurance policy.

UPDATE:Shacknews has a lot more on this issue, including info on Rock Band 2 content.

Comments

If you want to be a responsible citizen of the gaming industry you would want to take advantage of used games retailers to help the industry. Used games are a good way to check if the game is really worth it's new package price. If it is worth the price of a new one, return the used game and buy the new one. If it is not worth the new price tag and you like the game keep it and don't buy a new one. This will help used games retailers to stay in business. It's not like publishers are locking the used game you just won't get any additional stuff unlike buying a new one. If a game is not worth 60 bucks i doubt that the additional downloadable content is worth it as well. If the game really sucked return it and tell your friends it really sucks. Point is let's give credit to those games which are real worth their price and drop those which are not worth 60 bucks. Let's utilize used games retailers to help us out sort the good tomatoes from the bad ones. If the publishers are confident that consumers will buy new games if it is worth the price they rather put more heart into making a 60 dollar worth game than publishing stupid policies like this one. Remember abuse of trying to get more for less (for both game developers and consumers) are the seeds of discontent between consumers and game publihers. This discontent engcourages consumers to resort to piracy and the game publishers to release non-consumer friendly policies such as this one.

Thank you gaming companies for once again ecouraging piracy... May the death of your own making take you sooner rather than later so that companies who's CEOs actually have brains could replace you and save the market while there is still some chance of doing that...

Hey I got a great idea!!! Cars who's engines have to be registered to the purchaser's social security number... only the original puchaser may have the engine repaired!!! non compliance means jail time for repair men... and perosn trying to have his car fixed...

I don't know what everyone is freaking out about. This is the kind of approach I would like to see publishers taking to help discourage used game sales and piracy. It's much better than more stringent DRM solutions.

This approach doesn't really hurt anyone. The people who buy the game new get an extra bonus for buying the game new. The people who buy the game used still get the game but may miss out on some content. I'm sure the publisher isn't going to miss out on an opportunity to get these people's money so they will probably sell the additional content to them.

This isn't going to totally destroy the used game market anyway. What it will do is make it less viable for big stores like GameStop or Electronics Boutique to sell a used game for $5 less than a new copy and keeping all the profits for themselves.

This is the kind of creative approach that I'd like to see more publisher take. Giving more value to customers who pay for a new copy of a game is a good thing.

I don't agree it will make it less viable for them to sell used copies. This will likely just have more customers calling the companies wondering why their bonus content is already used up.

Yes, most of us hate GameStop's practices, but you're probably unaware of their gutting practice. And this doesn't really stop them from selling "used" they just package it as new, and without informing it was. A code built onto the disk will likely make this more worrisome since it will not be noticeable in-store.

Then at that point, you're hurting the new game sales even more, by discouraging people from going for newer titles. To make it worse, they may think all game retailers practice this.

Whatever happened to promotions of little figurines or plushies or extra disks that had this extra content on it? I still have my Mumbo Jumbo plushie from pre-ordering Banjo Kazooie so long ago. :X

I hate this policy since basically its like DRM... And I bet one day thats how it will all be... Enter a code to play the game and if it transfers systems you get this message "The game you are trying to play has been registered to a different gaming console. Please insert the disc into the original console."

Then you may have to go to Gamestop or whoever just to get a new code if not from the publisher themselves... All this DRM business is far to experimental and doesn't benefit anyone. It pisses the people who buys the games off and presents a challenges to pirates and of course if its high profile like Gears of War II they will find a way no matter how long it takes. So the company still will get screwed.

First you do have the right to see the disc before the transaction is done.

Secondly this is nothing but bad times if I spend $60 on a game I can trade it in and usually get between $20-$30 for it but if it becomes gimped then it's worth about as much as an Atari 2600 Cart floating around a Goodwill.

These insane rules(Coupled with shovelware and 60000000000000000 different 360/PS3 Skus) will cause the industry to crash again mark my words in 10 years games will be dead.

i hate buying used games, #1, because i dont like to run the risk of dropping 30 someodd dollars on a game only to find out it is scratched beyond belief, making it unplayable and thus necessitating a second trip to the store.

the second reason i hate buying them is because, well, 5 dollars off a title that just came out is not worth it. im already spending 55, might as well make it easy and pay with 3 20s and GTFO.

also, i hate gamestop et al's trade in policy. im never trading a game in again in my life. too many times have i dropped 40+ dollars on a game that pretty much sucked beyond any resemblance of fun, only to take it back to trade it in, even if the game is only a month old, and getting 8 bucks out of it. screw that, that hardly pays for the taxes on a new purchase.

having said all that, the only way i would support this idea is if it meant that a) the quality of games coming out now increased (soul caliber 4 is pretty crap-tastic); and b) the price of games went back down to 30 or 40 dollars for a new title.

I like how some of you people are still somehow trying to get your axe grinding with EA on this issue. While they are perhaps being the most consumer freindly on this issue. How does EA do it? They release stuff for free. By doing this it makes sure that the number of used copies that goes out on market lowers. Burnout Paridise, and Bad Company were the examples of this where it makes people keep the game because support keeps comming in. I think some of you should give EA props for doing this since it's including features to a game after release and not cutting off features of a game before release. And the Rock Band stuff? Rock Band 2 has over 80 Songs already! That alone is worth the $60, but adding 20 others? I was just thinking, they gotta be outta their minds! EA isin't the example you should be fighting against, it's infact the example you should be fighting for with this issue since it treats the consumer better than all the other companies.

Games, like other entertainment products, are final goods. What I'm not sure of is that when you sell a video game, is it still considered a final good? Because you are no longer the final consumer of the game. I think this is what some publishers are trying to get at, and implying that you can never tell when a consumer good is truly "final" or at its end of its purchasing history because it could go on indefinitely. And these game codes are their way of saying "this truly is a final good" as you are the only person to get the full benefits of the game.

I have no problem whatsoever with what the industry is doing. The choice is still left to consumers with a bonus for original sales. Fine.

I have no problem whatsoever with an owner selling a used game. Once you bought it, it's yours to do with as you please: sell it, torch it, molest it, use it as a coaster; it's yours do with it as you please.

Where I have to draw the distinction is a game retailer who makes it purposefully difficult to buy new games in favor of their used games business. They pay $20 (not even cash, you get a store refund!) for a newish used game and sell it for $50, so thats $30 straight cash. To prop up this business, they make it difficult to find new stock on their shelves unless you preordered it. Gamestop is a blight on this industry and whatever the publishers can do to cripple their business of taking advantage of unknowing gamers is a positive step.

Sell your game on eBay for real cash, trade it with friends as a 1:1 swap, do whatever else you can but do NOT sell it to Gamestop. In the end, you will lose out.

This is not cool by any means. Say what you will about GameStop, but being able to get some great used AAA & AA titles for almost half the cost is really nice. I was able to buy 6 (good) used games for $70 just a few weeks back because of their Buy 2 Used, Get 1 Used free sale. Like hell I'm going to see that go away - especially when a lot of current gen titles suck.

Seriously, I understand how used gamers are losing out here, but they pay less, AND they end up with a copy that could have been anywhere. I always buy new for the feeling of ripping off the shrink-wrap, if publishers want to give me free stuff to encourage me to buy the game new, then hooray! Gimme.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned how this will screw over people who buy new.

Consoles fail -- it happens. We can ignore 360 failure rates -- ALL consoles fail at least some of the time. But if you need to replace the console, will it know that you're the same gamer? We can point at the games downloaded from the XBox marketplace which can only be played if you're logged in after your system bricks. I'm not aware of the Wii letting users 'sign in' to verify what they've downloaded, and I don't know if the PS3 can keep track of these things either.

So, now, these games with 'One Time' content, will be missing content for any player who misfortunately has failed hardware.

Content purchased for the Wii ties itself to that hardwares serial number. However, should you need your system repaired or replaced, Nintendo vetoes the validity of the software on the other system and validates it for the new system. In your transaction menu, you can redownload anything you purchased an unlimited number of times. Three times an hour should you wish.

PSN purchases are tied to a master account as for transaction history. This content can be downloaded on up to five different consoles but this content never "phones home" again so households with multiple PS3s can have Stardust HD on five different consoles without limitations. Only Warhawk places a limitation on that where the account that purchased the game is the only account that can play the game. This, however, doesn't hold true for expansion packs of Warhawk where the five install limit reapplies.

Microsoft now has a tool kit to completely transfer ownership between consoles.

In other words, your fears are hysterical fears as all companies are moving swiftly towards a better system more steamlike.

The 360 THANKFULLY has some work-arounds for that issue where they fix it if they have to replace the system, or you can, once a year, move all of your downloads to one main system so you don't have to be online. The Wii on the otherhand does not have this. You do have to re-buy anything if the system is replaced. The PS3 is going back and forth on what you can and can not do (usually dependent on which game).

How will customers respond? Well I know how THIS customer will respond. If this becomes a reality I will stop buying new PC games for good. These days, due to DRM practices and the overall lack of really good games, my PC gaming time has been reduced drastically anyway. It won't take much to persuade me that PC gaming is not worth it anymore.

First of all, the desire to rake in a percentage of the used game sales is pure corporate greed. Any business with a decent pricing model recognizes its income based on the initial sale of the game to the individual consumer. They can't really scream about the presence of a used game on the shelf because they've already been paid for it.

For every used game you see on the shelf, that's a new game sale that has already gone to the software developers. That's simple economics. After the original point of sale, the developer has no further claim to what happens to that disc provided that the software isn't copied or tampered with.

On the flip side, if a developer wants to add premium content to their first time buyers, that's their option. It's their product. If a gamer wants to get the content, then he can pay the extra cash. If he wants to buy used and skip the content, it shouldn't matter because someone else had to buy the game new in order for it to become used. The video game companies aren't losing anything, they just aren't making as much as they'd like to. Keep that in perspective.

There's an undercurrent in their thinking that seems to be trying to equate used game purchases with piracy and that's just way out of whack.

What I'm curious to know is how this decision will affect video game rental companies like Blockbuster, Gamefly and Movie Gallery. Will the first person to rent the game get the content as part of his rental and everyone else can shove off? Or will software companies create specific game discs that can be sold to rental companies (often at 3-4 times their shelf value) without the content even being available...?

If a game is good enough to stand on its own, then people will pay to buy it new. If it sucks, then it will sit on the shelf next to a trove of used copies of itself as gamers try to recoup some small percentage of their losses...

Meh, this is only a short-term problem. Within the next 10 years I expect the industry standard to be digital distribution, for better or worse. Even for consoles.

Think about it. DD first appeared on the PC and has proven to be very successful, especially Steam. Many of those reports that show PC sales being "down" usually don't take DD into account.

It is only a matter of time before consoles follow suite. What do you think XBLA or PSN are? They are testing the waters to see if console players are interested. So far both networks seem to be doing exceptionaly well. Granted XBLA/PSN titles aren't "retail quality" but the next logical step would be to include full retail games.

They'll start off by copying the PC's current bussiness model; they'll release the full game in retail stores but also will release it as DD on the console's network. So long as they make a large enough profit off of the DD sales it's really only a matter of time before the standard is DD.

Place yourself in a CEO's shoes for a moment. You're looking at figures of potential sales loss due to used copy sales. You take a look at the XBLA and PC market and see that DD is selling rather well. Hard drives are only getting larger and cheaper. More people are connected to the internet than ever before and the number of net users can only increase. Digital distribution seems like a rather tempting and profitable alternative, doesn't it?

I'm inclined to think that people tha take this sort of thing too personally are taking it too seriously. The markup on used games is HUGE. Last time I was in a gamestop comparing prices on the game I wanted used versus new, it was a 5 dollar difference. (You cannot tell me that they paid whomever sold them back that game, 50 bucks. 20 if they were LUCKY). On 60 bucks 5 bucks isn't worth it. So frankly, if the publishers want me to buy more new games, I don't have a huge problem with that. It's true that some of the older, more obscure titles, once they stop selling come down to a reasonable price point where used becomes worthwhile, but when games get old enough that they hit that price point, it's a good bet they're old enough that the publishers won't be offering special incentives on new copies anymore either.

I guess my problem is that I don't see the used market as a huge opportunity for consumers so much as the rental market. Used is really more a place for the retailers to exercise their super-markup powers, and as such, it doesn't really worry me if the publishers encourage people to try to stay away from it.

"Even if it was online gaming that somehow inspired him to kill his parents, he must have realised at some point that they wouldn't drop any good loot." - GP member, Doomsong

You know, rather than ranting how the sky is falling, the sky is falling, by christ someone install some supports, let's look at this logically. First, comparing the game industry to any other industry is instant failure in your arguement. Auto companies buy the used cars because that often gets people into NEW cars. Movies can make money for 90 years.

Video games? Three months. The average game only has three months to recover the monetary investment. Bonuses like this are how companies make those ends meet. What's the difference between this and preorder bonuses? All this does is add value to the new game purchase. And is this a direct blow at Gamestop? Yes, actually. Let's put it this way. Which version of a game is Gamestop pushing? It sure as hell isn't the New copy. In fact, Gamestop notoriously underorders new games to drum up scarcity on hotter titles. Thus their warning, "you gotta preorder duuuuuude."

Now, this move? Dickish on the surface but think about it. Criterion has been adding booku content to their game for free and seeing little money in return for it. Gamestop is the one profiting on the used copies sold. Now imagine you're working at Criterion and all your hard work is fattening the wallets of a company that has openly said New Game sales aren't their priority, wouldn't you be pissed?

Now take a look at Rock Band 2. Both used and new copies have 84 songs but the NEW copies will have a bonus 20 songs. Now, the USED copy of Rock Band 2 is $55, the NEW copy of Rock Band 2 is $60... no brainer, don't you think? All in all, it's an industry with a much smaller sales life than any other industry directly combating their biggest threat. If you like games and the industry as a whole, you should be applauding this move since THIS is what keeps companies from going under. After those three months are up, the new bonuses won't matter. Most companies will likely make the features free.

1. Smaller game companies dont do things like this to keep their business alive, only the bigger companies are doing it.2. The music industry is most like the game industry. I was going to say software, but there is no resale value for most software, but this isn't for work, this is for entertainment. (You can't sell a used pencil very easily...)3. I buy just as many games when they hit platnum or whatever and are cheaper as I do used and new games. So it isn't like their sales disappear after 3 months.4. GameSpot is not a good company and does rip off consumers overall, but Ebay is another story. Overall GameSpot makes huge profit off of preorders and used games, when they could be making half of that profit instead and still be in good shape, just the CEO wouldnt be as over paid.5. What Criterion does is please their consumer where the initial product is not worth the initial price in all reality, and they go over that a little bit, but it doesn't take that much to do what they are offering for free. Seriosly, if the game is made correctly, it doesnt even take a day for a artist to create a new car to put into the download bin for burnout, most idiots can do it in about 1 hour with the pre-built tools they most likely have.6. EA makes $4 billion a year, which translates to something like $400,000 on average for every employee after taxes. The people I know that work there make far less than that, and throughout the entire dev team $75,000/yr is great pay for most of them compared to what they make.

1. Smaller companies are doing it. Epic, for example, is a small studio of only around 100 people. Media Molecule is doing preorder bonuses. Atlus, etc. You WIIL see this a lot more in the future, trust me. It's just when EA does it, it's instantly evil and immoral.2. The music industry licenses out the music and the musical artists, in fact, see their biggest cut from concerts and such. Music industry is nothing like the games industry.3. If a game doesn't qualify for Greatest/Platinum hits, what then? Isn't the value of certain games (Radiant Silvergun, Pikmin 2) stemming from titles that never went into a second run? Likewise, many many games don't become eligible. THUS, the first three months, as a rule of the industry, is their only chance to turn a profit.4. Actually Ebay's increasingly large bite out of the transaction with fees IS becoming problematic along with Ebay scammers which Ebay tends to side with the buyers rather than the sellers.5. Burnout Paradise was sooooooo worth the initial cost and was a critically acclaimed racing game. The value they added later was to make sure Burnout Paradise would have sales beyond the three month period as confessed by one of the design leads on Gamasutra, dubbing 2008 the "Year of Burnout" with the planned bonuses. As to how hard adding this kind of content is, let's just say you should probably take a class or something. In game development, there is no magic command line in your dev kit that reads "Make this shit cool and bug free." Just like there has yet to be a 3D modeler discovered that could make a Burnout car in under an hour. These assumptions just prove you know little about game development.6. So this relates to the issue at hand HOW? You're talking profit from EA and that's kind of a "no shit" point at this time. What about Koei and Tecmo? Two recent companies that merged just to survive. Not everyone is EA, so destroying my point with EA stats is really disrespectful to all the Volitions, FASAs, and Free Radicals of the world.

Well, I agree with you. But Ford itself does not profit off the purchase and reselling of used cars. The dealer who buys and sells the used car profits. Same situation, but different responses from car manufacturers and game publishers.

Let's look at the movie industry for a moment. They have a nice income structure that is unrivaled by any other industry. They make back almost all if not all expenses at the theatre. But most often that is not where the real profits come. The real profits come from DVD sales. In this industry, they basically sell you the same thing twice. They funny thing is, the cheaper experience is actually the better experience. For half the price of a DVD, you get to watch the movie on a 50 foot screen with 20 speaker surround sound. For the price of the DVD you get to watch it at home on your 36 inch tv with 5 speaker surround. But people buy the DVDs because they can continue to watch the movie. Consumers are happy with this.

Now in the video game industry, we have one way to make money. Sell the game. There is no other way to make money off of that one game. The only way to make more money off a game in the game industry is to expand the experience. They need to sell DLC and expansions. If a franchise is really popular, your real profit would come from expansions and DLC. In this situation, it wouldn't matter if a game is bought new or used, because people are buying the extra goodies. The only problem is that consumers are not happy with this without some change. They are paying full price for the game and then having to pay extra for content. What should be happening is the game should be sold at a much lower price than it is now and people would be more willing to buy the extras.

Next we have advertising in games. Gamers expect to receive somethign in return for havingto be subjected to ads in games. Look at tv. The yhave ads and the content is free for the viewer. But gamers have to pay full price for games riddled with ads. Can the price not be dropped any for ad supported games? The ycould still make money from the advertising and gamers wouldn't mind because they paid less for the game than one without advertising.

I'd say unless the ads generate SIGNIFICANT revenue, which they more often than not don't, I don't see how we should expect that to be the difference between a $60 copy of Dead Space and a $30 copy. As long as the ads are not invasionary, I don't have issues. It's just the invasionary ads I get annoyed at (GH III).

To me, throwing ads in the game ensures the latest release isn't a make or break proposition for the studio. So I don't mind ads if it means that, should Dead Space not do as well as hoped, the studio doesn't shutter up like EA Chicago.

Fact of the matter is, games are now costing many times the amount they ran when PS2's gen was around and we only saw a $10 increase. Eventually something is going to have to break and if new game bonuses to discourage used game sales in that VERY important three month cycle is one of the things, bring it on. These aren't things being withheld from the game or kept permanently out of the hands of used buyers after all.

Might I say this is a stupid idea, a lot of people i know like to rent new games so they know whether or not they actually want to buy the game... If a game has a code that can only be used once then how would you be able to rent games to play so you know if you like it,

THATS ONCE PLACE THEY WOULD LOSE SALES........

And what about 3 years from now when someone want to buy a used game that has been out for a couple years already and you cant buy a new copy's of it and if there is a code on all of there games then how will we play it.

THIS WILL Take DOWN HOW MUCH or MANY PEOPLE LIKE THE COMPANY ONE BECAUSE THEY CANT PLAY THE GAME AND TWO BECAUSE THERE MAD THEY CANT BUY IT AND USE IT.

I can understand why they get annoyed when a used copy is up for sale next to a new one on the first day/week but the games stores are only organising and running whats been going on for years anyway, and it's not like they can regulate ebay or your local car boot sale.

Also if it's more than a few months old often the only way to find a copy at all is to buy used, especially if it wasn't a hugely popular title.

If they really want to stop people from buying used they should go the stores, steal some of the instruction booklets and use the cases as cigarette trays. Gamestation in the UK already seem to be running this policy.

What they are doing now, I actually have no problems with. If they want to offer a carrot to people who buy games new, that is ok. They get more profit form first sales and it is within their rights and interests to encourage people to buy new,.. and if they can do that via extra rewards to people who benifit them more then that sounds fine. Esp if they offer the same benifits at a seperate cost to people who DO want to buy the game used (who can then deice for themselves if the extra content is worth the money to them)

Now, if this transitions to a stick approach by locking out key content then we have a problem. Still, slippery sloap is considered a logical falicy so let's not assume that it MUST happen.

And you have no evidence this will be the case. None. What you have is speculation and a lame attempt at outrage for Epic making five map remakes in Gears 2 exclusive only to people who buy New. That's not a core element in the slightest. This is a DLC meant to promote new game sales. No more, no less.

Might as well start bitching how Rare has the balls to give away Banjo-Kazooie on XBLA for free to people who preorder Banjo: Nuts and Bolts.

Given the current best practices of the industry especially from companies like EA and Acti I think my fears are more than warranted. Now with that said, I fully support Epic for its creative approach to improving first sales and wish it a shitload of success.

-------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

EA has already started doing this too (no surprise there). Rock Band 2 on the 360/PS3 (and probably the Wii as well) comes with a code in the manual to register for an extra 20 free downloadable songs (as yet to be announced/released). While I'm all for an extra 20 free songs, limiting it only to new copies of the game is a pain. I understand their perspective, they're not getting any money from the people buying used games, but at least make the content available for a fee to those who don't have the codes or whatever. I suspect this is the diretion it will go, as less tech savvy consumers may be upset when they discover that the content advertised on the back of the game they just bought used isn't actually available to them.

ya know, i think this could also stem from a want/need to block people who want the games, but are on a roundabout boycott against certain companies, from getting the games used, or wanting to get them used.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

ZippyDSMlee: .....win8 hates any left over hidden install partitions from other version of windows....only waste 5 hours finding that out...its ahrder than you think keeping up with 4 or 5 HDDS......03/03/2015 - 4:44am

Matthew Wilson: I am going to pax east, any games you guys want me to check out?03/02/2015 - 11:23pm

ZippyDSMlee: No one remembers the days of Cinemagic and Cynergy eh? :P, meh even MGS is getting to film like....03/02/2015 - 8:44pm

MechaTama31: I was about to get all defensive about liking Metal Gear Solid, but then I saw that he was talking about "cinematic" as a euphemism for "crappy framerate".03/02/2015 - 8:29pm

prh99: Just replace cinematic with the appropriate synonym for poo and you'll have gist of any press release.03/02/2015 - 5:34pm

Monte: Though from a business side, i would agree with the article. While it would be smarter for developers to slow down, you can't expect EA, Activision or ubisoft to do something like that. Nintnedo's gotta get the third party back.02/28/2015 - 4:36pm

Monte: Though it does also help that nintendo's more colorful style is a lot less reliant on graphics than more realistic games. Wind Waker is over 10 years old and still looks good for its age.02/28/2015 - 4:33pm

Monte: With the Wii, nintnedo had the right idea. Hold back on shiny graphics and focus on the gameplay experience. Unfortunatly everyone else keeps pushing for newer graphics and it matters less and less each generation. I can barely notice the difference02/28/2015 - 4:29pm

Monte: ON third party developers; i kinda think they should slow down to nintendo's pace. They bemoan the rising costs of AAA gaming, but then constantly push for the best graphics which is makes up a lot of those costs. Be easier to afford if they held back02/28/2015 - 4:27pm

Matthew Wilson: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/28/the-world-is-nintendos-if-only-theyd-take-it/ I think this is a interesting op-ed, but yeah it kind of is stating the obvious.02/28/2015 - 2:52pm